What is the basis for the belief that Ignatius of Antioch knew the Apostle John? This seems to be a traditional belief. For example, The Catholic Encyclopedia entry from 1910 says > "It is also believed, and with great probability, that, with his > friend Polycarp, he was among the auditors of the Apostle St. John." Yet it gives no explicit reason why it is believed with great probability. A Q & A answerer here says > "Ignatius of Antioch doesn't mention any personal connection to John > in his authentic letters. Irenaeus mentions that he met Polycarp, who > had known John and at least one other apostle, as he refers to > "apostles" in the plural being known to Polycarp (Against Heresies > 3.3). Ignatius did write letters to Polycarp and to the church at Smyrna. There are two letters of Ignatius to John preserved in Latin, > but these are universally recognized as forgeries dated to the middle > ages. **There's no reliable evidence to connect Ignatius directly with > any of the apostles. So, as you say, this is likely a case of > "tradition based on forgery."**" Is this correct - is the idea that Ignatius of Antioch knew the Apostle John based solely on forged letters?

St. Ignatius of Antioch, an early Martyr with connection to the apostles, [wrote](http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2011/10/on-authority-of-bishops-from-st.html) that a Deacon, Priest, and Bishop were needed for the Church: >“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. […] Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. […] Whatsoever [the bishop] shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.” (St. Ignatius: Letter to the Smyrnaeans; Ch 8) “Let all things therefore be done by you with good order in Christ. Let the laity be subject to the deacons; the deacons to the presbyters; the presbyters to the bishop; the bishop to Christ, even as He is to the Father.” (St. Ignatius: Letter to the Smyrnaeans; Ch 9) I know non-episcopal Protestants tend to be hesitant to look outside the Bible, but how do they respond to this man who knew the apostles, and was so close to the time of Christ?

It is correct that the term "Christian" was first used in Antioch, but **not** coined by just someone who made up nicknames. Is it possible that St. Ignatius, the 3rd Bishop of Antioch coined this term?

It's often claimed that 'Ignatius is the first to believe in the monepiscopacy' (that a bishop runs a church region with the assistance of presbyters/elders) or that 'churches were simply run by a plurality of elders.' However, don't his letters (written ~15 years after the book of Revelation) **assume this is the episcopacy is what all the churches (both East and West) already had?** For the sake of brevity, I'll just cite some of what he says. The church in Ephesus... -- >It is therefore befitting that you should in every way glorify Jesus Christ, who has glorified you, that by a unanimous obedience "you may be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgment, and may all speak the same thing concerning the same thing," 1 Corinthians 1:10 and that, being subject to **the bishop** and the presbytery, you may in all respects be sanctified. (*Ad Ephesios*, cap. 2) > >... Wherefore it is fitting that you should run together in accordance with the will of your bishop, which thing also you do. For your justly renowned presbytery, worthy of God, is **fitted as exactly to the bishop as the strings are to the harp.** (*Ad Ephesios*, cap. 4) The church in Magnesia... -- >Since, then, I have had the privilege of seeing you, through **Damas your most worthy bishop,** and through your **worthy presbyters Bassus and Apollonius,** and through my fellow-servant the deacon Sotio, whose friendship may I ever enjoy, inasmuch as he is **subject to the bishop as to the grace of God, and to the presbytery** as to the law of Jesus Christ, [I now write to you]. (*Ad Magnesios*, cap. 2) The church in Tralles... -- >For, since you are subject to **the bishop** as to Jesus Christ, you appear to me to live not after the manner of men, but according to Jesus Christ, who died for us, in order, by believing in His death, you may escape from death. It is therefore necessary that, as you indeed do, so without the bishop you should do nothing, but should **also be subject to the presbytery,** as to the apostle of Jesus Christ, who is our hope, in whom, if we live, we shall [at last] be found. It is fitting **also that the deacons,** as being [the ministers] of the mysteries of Jesus Christ, should in every respect be pleasing to all. For they are not ministers of meat and drink, but servants of the Church of God. They are bound, therefore, to avoid all grounds of accusation [against them], as they would do fire. (*Ad Trallios*, cap. 2) > >...In like manner, let all reverence **the deacons** as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and **the bishop** as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and **the presbyters** as the sanhedrin of God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church. (*Ad Trallios*, cap. 3) The church in Rome... -- > Pray, then, do not seek to confer any greater favour upon me than that I be sacrificed to God while the altar is still prepared; that, being gathered together in love, you may sing praise to the Father, through Christ Jesus, that God has deemed **me, the bishop of Syria,** worthy to be sent for from the east unto the west. It is good to set from the world unto God, that I may rise again to Him. ... I write to the Churches, and impress on them all, that I shall willingly die for God, unless you hinder me. I beseech of you not to show an unseasonable good-will towards me. Allow me to become food for the wild beasts, through whose instrumentality it will be granted me to attain to God. I am the wheat of God, and let me be ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of Christ. (*Ad Romanos*, cap. 2-4) The church in Philadelphia... -- >Take heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to [show forth ] the unity of His blood; one altar; **as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons,** my fellow-servants: that so, whatsoever you do, you may do it according to [the will of] God. (*Ad Philadelphios*, cap. 4) The church at Smyrna... -- >See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate an Agape [meal]; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid. (*Ad Smyrnios*, cap. 8) Question -- How do those who think the Catholic/Orthodox/Anglican/traditional view of the bishopric was not apostolic answer this? Thanks in advance.

I have recently being reading into some history of early Christians. I came across a reference to Ignatius of Antioch in the book "Revelations: Visions, Prophecy & Politics in the Book of Revelation" by Elaine Pagels: > The first person we know who aggressively called himself "a Christian" to distinguish himself from Jews was the Syrian convert Ignatius of Antioch. Converted to Paul's message perhaps around 80 or 90 CE, twenty years after "the great apostle" first preached in his home city, Ignatius so zealously took this message to heart that he took Paul as the model for his own life. **Calling himself Christophoros, "Christ bearer"**, this strong-minded believer travelled through Asia Minor about fifteen years after John [of Patmos] had been there and like John, wrote letters to seven churches near the coast, including three to groups of Jesus's followers in Ephesus, Smyrna and Philadelphia - the same cities that John had addressed. —*p65, Penguin Books Edition, 2013* My own name is the Anglicised version of Christophoros, so I found this interesting. I was name this way by my devoted Christian parents, and they explained to me from a young age why they chose this name, "Christ bearer". I had previously been vaguely aware of a Saint Christopher and had assumed he was the origin of my name. However, doing further reading into Ignatius, I found his wikipedia article which states that he named himself **Theophorus "God Bearer"**. Elaine Pagels is Professor of Religion at Princeton University and her books are extremely well referenced throughout in true scholarly fashion, but there is no reference for this particular piece of information. Wikipedia also does not back up its claim with a reference. I suppose this could be a translation artifact but I find this unlikely as I feel early Christians in any language would have had a clear distinction between Christ the Son and God the Father. Which of these was the assumed name of Ignatius? Or are both correct? (I've just ordered a copy of Ignatius' letters, which I believe are the only real source of information about him, so the answer may well lie within, but it will take a few days to arrive, especially at this time of year!)

What evidence do we possess today indicating that Ignatius of Antioch was ordained by the Apostles?

Why First Epistle to St. John by St. Ignatius of Antioch is considered to be spurious? Were there any valid reasons put forth to consider it as spurious? The wiki page and this Catholic source only state that this and other epistles by St. Ignatius of Antioch are considered to be spurious, but don't mention any reasons why.

There are approximately seven "genuine" epistles attributed to Ignatius of Antioch. I'm curious to know what kind of ecclesiastical structure he mentions in his epistles. If he discussed it, in what ways was it similar to and different from the ecclesiastical structure of today's Roman Catholic Church?